Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 70

Thread: Guns are the problem?

  1. Top | #11
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    15,149
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,092
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Patooka View Post
    But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)
    Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

    with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.
    That's true. If you are fucking psychopath, as we learned, an airplane is even more dangerous. Or fertilizer placed in the right place.

    Of course, neither automobiles, planes or fertilizers were designed to kill people - they have other nonviolent purposes. Guns do not. For some odd reason, anti-gun regulation people cannot seem to grasp that simple concept which allows them to come up with most inane arguments.

  2. Top | #12
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,588
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Patooka View Post
    But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)
    Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

    with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.
    That's true. If you are fucking psychopath, as we learned, an airplane is even more dangerous. Or fertilizer placed in the right place.

    Of course, neither automobiles, planes or fertilizers were designed to kill people - they have other nonviolent purposes. Guns do not. For some odd reason, anti-gun regulation people cannot seem to grasp that simple concept which allows them to come up with most inane arguments.
    but guns and automobiles are both made out of metal. so they are identical Why is the original thought of an inventor meaningful but the fact they are made out of the same materials not?

    The person that invented the "horseless carriage" was just trying to eliminate all horses
    The person that invented the gun was just trying to help feed the hungry.

    Zygon B (sp?) was a chemical fertilizer designed to help feed the starving, due to being highly effective and cheap to produce. It's good right? All about it right? Well the Germans found another use for it.. they used it to kill over 1 million Jews in gas chambers. Oh, now it's suddenly a bad thing, I guess... that inventor should be killed, right?

    That happened again with Agent Orange... the inventor was doing agriculture and the military usurped it for war...

    Very famously, the inventor of TNT, who intended to revolutionize mining to make it safer and more efficient, was quite put off when dynamite was used to blow people up.

    Don't even get me started on Leaded Gasoline. That's the automobile's accessory we had in the past that almost wiped out humanity.

  3. Top | #13
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    24,187
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,660
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    That's true. If you are fucking psychopath, as we learned, an airplane is even more dangerous. Or fertilizer placed in the right place.

    Of course, neither automobiles, planes or fertilizers were designed to kill people - they have other nonviolent purposes. Guns do not. For some odd reason, anti-gun regulation people cannot seem to grasp that simple concept which allows them to come up with most inane arguments.
    but guns and automobiles are both made out of metal. so they are identical Why is the original thought of an inventor meaningful but the fact they are made out of the same materials not?

    The person that invented the "horseless carriage" was just trying to eliminate all horses
    The person that invented the gun was just trying to help feed the hungry.
    Feed the hungry? You misspelled developed as a weapon of war.

  4. Top | #14
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    15,149
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,092
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    That's true. If you are fucking psychopath, as we learned, an airplane is even more dangerous. Or fertilizer placed in the right place.

    Of course, neither automobiles, planes or fertilizers were designed to kill people - they have other nonviolent purposes. Guns do not. For some odd reason, anti-gun regulation people cannot seem to grasp that simple concept which allows them to come up with most inane arguments.
    but guns and automobiles are both made out of metal. so they are identical Why is the original thought of an inventor meaningful but the fact they are made out of the same materials not?

    The person that invented the "horseless carriage" was just trying to eliminate all horses
    The person that invented the gun was just trying to help feed the hungry. ....
    Are you serious? Guns were designed to kill, none of the other products that you mentioned were. Citing misuse of products to defend the intended use if a product is illogical,

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,588
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    That's true. If you are fucking psychopath, as we learned, an airplane is even more dangerous. Or fertilizer placed in the right place.

    Of course, neither automobiles, planes or fertilizers were designed to kill people - they have other nonviolent purposes. Guns do not. For some odd reason, anti-gun regulation people cannot seem to grasp that simple concept which allows them to come up with most inane arguments.
    but guns and automobiles are both made out of metal. so they are identical Why is the original thought of an inventor meaningful but the fact they are made out of the same materials not?

    The person that invented the "horseless carriage" was just trying to eliminate all horses
    The person that invented the gun was just trying to help feed the hungry. ....
    Are you serious? Guns were designed to kill, none of the other products that you mentioned were.
    I am of the opinion the inventor's intent is irrelevant. Guns were "designed to kill people" just as much as cars were "designed to eliminate the Horse Trade".

    Guns were originally invented by the Chinese to DEFEND against invasion. In other words.. to save people's lives.
    Citing misuse of products to defend the intended use if a product is illogical
    Wait a second... Citing intended use of products to defend the misuse is equally illogical.

  6. Top | #16
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    24,808
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,560
    Rep Power
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post

    You're still trying to confuse the issue by blaming assault rifles for the overall murder rate. Crime guns are overwhelmingly handguns.
    No, I'm blaming assault rifles for a particular type of dangerous murder. The other kinds of murders are bad and are addressable by regulations on hand guns specifically. You mentioned assault rifles, I talked to assault rifles.

    What, you want to criticize me now for fucking being on topic to your response?

    Seriously though, we can talk about handguns too: there is no reason to allow handguns in public either.
    The number killed by assault rifles in mass shooting is less than the number saved in self-defense cases. Assault rifles are much more likely to be used in defense as concealment is not an issue.

  7. Top | #17
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    15,149
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,092
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Are you serious? Guns were designed to kill, none of the other products that you mentioned were.
    I am of the opinion the inventor's intent is irrelevant. Guns were "designed to kill people" just as much as cars were "designed to eliminate the Horse Trade".
    Not only is that utter bs in its own right, it is a straw man. I wrote guns were designed to kill,
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut
    Guns were originally invented by the Chinese to DEFEND against invasion. In other words.. to save people's lives.
    By killing the invaders. Duh

    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut
    Wait a second... Citing intended use of products to defend the misuse is equally illogical.
    Since no one is doing that, what are you babbling about?

  8. Top | #18
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,712
    Archived
    229
    Total Posts
    1,941
    Rep Power
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Patooka View Post
    But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)
    Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

    with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.
    No, you are missing the point.

    I live in a country where you require a license not just to drive, but to also purchase a firearm. My opinion is that if you want to own a firearm, you should be put through an aptitude test much like a drivers license.

    Crazy, I know, right?

    I also think firearms should be treated like vehicles in the sense that if I have used a firearm irresponsibly (perhaps under the influence of alcohol), I should be disqualified from owning a firearm for a specific period of time. You,know, like a DUI.
    I also think that firearm safety should be treated like an esafety or pink slip for a car in New South Wales. If you are a responsible gun owner, you have no less to fear than a responsible car owner. If you are an irresponsible car owner, you lose your privilege to drive. If you are an irresponsible gun owner you lose your right to own firearms. I'm surprised that this is controversial as apparently guns are less lethal than cars.
    I also believe that a firearm registry should be as advanced as what one would receive at the RTA. In other words, If you get pulled over, a copper usually can determine if you own the car in a matter of minutes. For gun ownership it is 11 weeks minimum. That's bullshit.
    Oh, and when I purchase a vehicle, I must also purchase [url-https://www.greenslips.com.au/calculator.html]Compulsory Third Party Insurance[/url].

    So yes, I think that gun violence in the US would be fixed if only they treated firearms superior than what was used on Normandy D-Day with the same care and skepticism as they do vehicles.

  9. Top | #19
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,015
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    5,926
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Patooka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Patooka View Post
    But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)
    Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

    with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.
    No, you are missing the point.

    I live in a country where you require a license not just to drive, but to also purchase a firearm. My opinion is that if you want to own a firearm, you should be put through an aptitude test much like a drivers license.

    Crazy, I know, right?

    I also think firearms should be treated like vehicles in the sense that if I have used a firearm irresponsibly (perhaps under the influence of alcohol), I should be disqualified from owning a firearm for a specific period of time. You,know, like a DUI.
    I also think that firearm safety should be treated like an esafety or pink slip for a car in New South Wales. If you are a responsible gun owner, you have no less to fear than a responsible car owner. If you are an irresponsible car owner, you lose your privilege to drive. If you are an irresponsible gun owner you lose your right to own firearms. I'm surprised that this is controversial as apparently guns are less lethal than cars.
    I also believe that a firearm registry should be as advanced as what one would receive at the RTA. In other words, If you get pulled over, a copper usually can determine if you own the car in a matter of minutes. For gun ownership it is 11 weeks minimum. That's bullshit.
    Oh, and when I purchase a vehicle, I must also purchase [url-https://www.greenslips.com.au/calculator.html]Compulsory Third Party Insurance[/url].

    So yes, I think that gun violence in the US would be fixed if only they treated firearms superior than what was used on Normandy D-Day with the same care and skepticism as they do vehicles.
    I thought I just heard a WOOSH... I suspect that it is this argument flying over the head of an ammosexual, yet again.

  10. Top | #20
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    24,808
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    121,560
    Rep Power
    96
    Quote Originally Posted by Patooka View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Patooka View Post
    But I digress, we were talking about sensible regulation about an object that can cause more harm than what takes you to work everyday (see: vehicle)
    Anti-gun folk REALLY hate the automobile argument... because it is a strong one.

    with a single gallon of gasoline, I can run over thousands of people. With a single magazine of bullets, I can only kill a dozen. Cars hold more than ten gallons of fuel easily... tens of thousands of deaths potential, just so you can get to work everyday without messing up your hair.
    No, you are missing the point.

    I live in a country where you require a license not just to drive, but to also purchase a firearm. My opinion is that if you want to own a firearm, you should be put through an aptitude test much like a drivers license.

    Crazy, I know, right?

    I also think firearms should be treated like vehicles in the sense that if I have used a firearm irresponsibly (perhaps under the influence of alcohol), I should be disqualified from owning a firearm for a specific period of time. You,know, like a DUI.
    I also think that firearm safety should be treated like an esafety or pink slip for a car in New South Wales. If you are a responsible gun owner, you have no less to fear than a responsible car owner. If you are an irresponsible car owner, you lose your privilege to drive. If you are an irresponsible gun owner you lose your right to own firearms. I'm surprised that this is controversial as apparently guns are less lethal than cars.
    I also believe that a firearm registry should be as advanced as what one would receive at the RTA. In other words, If you get pulled over, a copper usually can determine if you own the car in a matter of minutes. For gun ownership it is 11 weeks minimum. That's bullshit.
    Oh, and when I purchase a vehicle, I must also purchase [url-https://www.greenslips.com.au/calculator.html]Compulsory Third Party Insurance[/url].

    So yes, I think that gun violence in the US would be fixed if only they treated firearms superior than what was used on Normandy D-Day with the same care and skepticism as they do vehicles.
    A license to possess a gun is something I've suggested many times over the years. A registry of what guns you own I'm not fine with--history shows that's often a prelude to confiscation. How often does the cop need to quickly know if it's your gun or stolen? And note that just because a car doesn't come back as registered to the driver doesn't mean anything's wrong. The cop only cares if the car comes back as stolen. Likewise, guns have serial numbers, all the cop should care about is if the serial number comes back as stolen.

    As for insurance, it's for accidents. The number of cases where insurance would pay is low. Mandatory insurance is another attempt to make guns expensive and get a backdoor list of all the guns out there.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •